99% is not enough. Now it’s the 99.5% myth.

_{Barry Arrington

December 12, 2008

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

On last night’s CSI-Las Vegas Lawrence Fishburne guest starred as a psychology lecturer at a local university named Raymond Langston. In a scene in which Langston was lecturing his students he described an incident reported by Jane Goodall where two chimps killed ten other chimps. Langston compared the chimp killings to human serial killers and noted that we should not be surprised because – wait for it . . . wait for it – chimps and humans share 99.5% of their genetic code.

First, as far as I know, no one has ever suggested that humans and chimps share 99.5% of their genetic code. 99% is the highest figure I have ever seen reported. But even that figure has been discarded, and even inveterate Darwinists now admit that the 1% figure is a myth, as this article from PloS One demonstrates.

What does this all mean? It means that Darwinists are very very good at insinuating their propaganda into the culture, even when the propaganda is wildly mistaken.

Comments

Even if the similarity was 98.7% that would still be a problem for Darwinism for reasons given previously on UD.Patrick_{December 14, 2008
December
12
Dec
14
14
2008
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

Barry, Have you noticed switch taking place among Darwinist, regarding % similarity in genetic code between chimps and humans. Now, they claim, 99% similarity is Creationist ploy to discredit "real" science and % is now irrelevant to the "fact" that chimps and humans have common ancestor. Notice similar switch that happened regarding "junk DNA". Current position is that "junk DNA" was never prediction of Evolutionary Biology and again, term was hijacked by Creationist to discredit science.inunison_{December 14, 2008
December
12
Dec
14
14
2008
12:56 AM
12
12
56
AM
PDT}

What is the significance of "how much" the genetic code of apes and man are alike? It is in the obvious difference that the significance lies not in the similarities? Even if the difference was even .000001% that would actually strike a significant blow AGAINST materialism. Think of it like this.. the mater from which you are made is virtually identical to an ape. Ok, well it is obviously not IDENTICAL because of the OBVIOUS differences in abilities between apes and humans. The intellectual abilities of apes is pathetic. They can't design or operate anything of any level of complexity such as a boat, car, spaceship etc. They cant look for cures to diseases or write symphonies or show compassion to a perceived enemy. They are pathetic creatures compared to Hamlet's paragon of animals. Now if we are exactly like apes what accounts for the significant difference? It cant be matter because ss the materialists explained we are just like the.. it can's be in the QUANTITY of coding either because as they have tried to convince us, even the code of life makes us basically the same. Or does it? Something accounts for the difference? It is in the small fraction of difference that we can see how paramount the encoding process really is to life. The difference between ape and man is actually a powerful demonstration of the power of intelligent design. That is it only take a fraction of difference in structure or form to produce hugely different results. Think of an engine that has one tiny but hugely important thing wrong with it. This engine will not work. I is however 99.9999999999% identical to another engine that does function and transports people thousands of miles all across the world. So it is in what matter does and how it behaves that the difference is to be measured. Not in the seemingly similar structures. As a metaphor, in medicine there can be two pills that look exactly alike but one will bring you life and the other death. This brings up another question which is if we cannot measure likeness of living things by their genetic code and it is not in the code that their identity can be defined, then how can we? Perhaps in the energy usage and direction in which their energy is facilitated? That is not by generous factors but by exogenous factors, that is the factor of the impact of the object on its environment. What is mans impact on its environment? And what are the apes? What % difference would this account for? maybe 7000%? (think of cities and technology, even pollution etc) I say we are more like 7000% different form the apes- that is GENETICALLY speaking- not in consistency of code but by it's effective identity. The small difference counts not for its ratio in comparison to the rest of the genes but by its effective activity in its real context. Call it, "effective gene quotient or (EGC)." A new way of looking at genes in their actual CONTEXT. So this is why Design is king when it comes to understanding biology and the universe as a whole. We need to understand the effective significance of things in order to understand them at all. Under a design framework would claims such as apes sharing 99.5% of their genes with humans be called into question. If there was no design issue then we would simply accept this as a fact and chalk up the naturally perceived huge differences between the species as an illusion- a perception that just doesn’t square with “the science“- something which actually doesn’t exist, when in fact, it is everything. So the closer the similarity in the genes the more power design has as a causative explanation. It takes incredibly intricate design to account for the effective genetic difference between the two.- differences that Darwinian evolution just can purchase.Frost122585_{December 13, 2008
December
12
Dec
13
13
2008
09:54 PM
9
09
54
PM
PDT}

I continue to hear that humans and chimps are 99% genetically identical. Those who cite this fact seem to think that it must prove that humans evolved “naturally” from chimps. Then they look at chimps and see all the ways they act that “proves’ we are the same. For me it means that DNA is indeed a most powerful code and an extremely efficient one that can incorporate all of the differences between chimps and humans in that 1%. Imagine, just a few tweaks and we go from Bonzo to Einstein or Jolie (Angelina). Way back when, we humans used to make much more of the differences. You know, music, math, language, technology, humor, art, etc. Now we look at the chimp using a stick to get at food in a log and exclaim - oh, look it is using a tool, it is so human like. Then on that basis we teach our children they are nothing but animals and then wonder why they start acting like animals. I think we are better served by pointing out the differences.smordecai_{December 13, 2008
December
12
Dec
13
13
2008
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

Okayyyy... CSI-Las Vegas as a conduit of Darwinist propaganda. Right.
What does this all mean? It means that Darwinists are very very good at insinuating their propaganda into the culture, even when the propaganda is wildly mistaken.
Alternatively, it means that the scriptwriters of CSI-Las Vegas haven't bothered reading up on genetics.Reg_{December 13, 2008
December
12
Dec
13
13
2008
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT}

With the Darwinists controlling Hollywood, I suppose it isn't a surprise that Expelled flopped. Although I am surprised the NCSE would even let a major studio even make it. Maybe there are cracks forming in their grip of the media.crater_{December 13, 2008
December
12
Dec
13
13
2008
02:59 AM
2
02
59
AM
PDT}

It is not important. It may be even 0.001% for me - the God-part is not the part of DNA. Some Snakes had a God part too ;) Seriously, it is not important. If darwinians are right, and the change of 1-2 genes can change shape of organs or functionality of organism, or make a real (r)evolution in nature - it is the ID win. Why? Let me show you some code: int brain = 1; // dog Let now change one gene... int brain = 2; // human Of course everybody says that DNA and computer code cannot be compared this way. Hmmmmm... why? Do we really know why some little changes can give a really BIG pros for animals? Beside.. computer simulations are really popular and good and proving evolution, right? Like these showing eye evo? Right?! Or maybe it is good only when shows that darwinians are right?lukaszk_{December 13, 2008
December
12
Dec
13
13
2008
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PDT}

Even with all this BS... it still doesn't allow them to escape the implications of Haldane's Dilemma.Lord Timothy_{December 12, 2008
December
12
Dec
12
12
2008
09:44 PM
9
09
44
PM
PDT}

I believe Lawrence Fishburne in now the lead person on CSI and William Petersen (Gil Grissom) will leave the show. So maybe the professor like character will treat us to some more pseudo science.jerry_{December 12, 2008
December
12
Dec
12
12
2008
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT}

We are debating a cult, not a scientific community.tribune7_{December 12, 2008
December
12
Dec
12
12
2008
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT}

Of course, they need to be careful about that last 0.5%, because if it ever turns out that we share 100% of our DNA with chimps, then Darwinists are going to have some serious explaining to do.Matteo_{December 12, 2008
December
12
Dec
12
12
2008
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT}

angryoldfatman:
It’s more true if you hear the voice of Morpheus say it.
LOL Sure but where's Neo when you really need him? TV shows - especially the Hollywood writers scripting them - are among the worst lie propagating mongrels on earth for their use of ridiculous notions, mis-information and 'wannabe scientist' nonsense. "Everything I learned in life I got from Star Trek" Under this you could easily add: signed - [insert any of the popular Darwinist high priest names here] You have to wonder which side got it from which! :-oBorne_{December 12, 2008
December
12
Dec
12
12
2008
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

It's more true if you hear the voice of Morpheus say it. :lol:angryoldfatman_{December 12, 2008
December
12
Dec
12
12
2008
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

Quick sound-byte myths are hard to destroy. Like the "we only use 10% of our brains" myth is still floating around and believed by a lot of people. But it doesn't help when people propagate a myth on tv or on a book's title.Collin_{December 12, 2008
December
12
Dec
12
12
2008
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply